Incident reporting is usually considered as an effective means to improve the safety of “at risk” socio-technical systems (e.g. nuclear plants, large industrial facilities, hospitals), as it allows ... [more ▼]

Incident reporting is usually considered as an effective means to improve the safety of “at risk” socio-technical systems (e.g. nuclear plants, large industrial facilities, hospitals), as it allows implicated actors to learn from past incidents. Safety could thus be enhanced via the use of an institutionalized Incident Reporting System (IRS), enabling organizations to improve the quality of actions and reactions in case of a deviation from normality, or to prevent such deviations from happening in the first place. Yet, there is a lack of inductive analyses of actual, on-site uses of IRS. In this paper, we address this gap, using the results of 28 semi-structured interviews conducted with agents from the Belgian Nuclear Research Center (SCK•CEN). The study relies on a vulnerability-oriented Science and Technology Studies (STS) approach. Our results show that practices of incident reporting are more varied than the institutionalized ones. Indeed, actual reporting practices are to be related to specific expressions of solidarity between colleagues within a negotiated drift – a pragmatic interpretation of the reporting procedure. These results are discussed in a vulnerability-oriented perspective. Overall, the paper displays a grounded analysis of incident reporting practices which may contribute to a better understanding of how safety is co-constructed by workers, and provides opportunities for further research and concrete path of actions for practitioners. [less ▲]

in Risk Analysis : An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis (2015), 35(1), 129-141

This paper draws on vulnerability analysis as it emerged as a complement to classical risk analysis, and it aims at exploring its ability of nurturing risk and vulnerability governance actions. An ... [more ▼]

This paper draws on vulnerability analysis as it emerged as a complement to classical risk analysis, and it aims at exploring its ability of nurturing risk and vulnerability governance actions. An analysis of the literature on vulnerability analysis allows us to formulate a threefold critique: first, vulnerability analysis has been treated separately in the natural and the technological hazards fields. This separation prevents vulnerability to unleash the full range of its potential, as it constraints appraisals into artificial categories and thus already closes down the outcomes of the analysis. Second, vulnerability analysis focused on assessment tools that are mainly quantitative, whereas qualitative appraisal is a key to assessing vulnerability in a comprehensive way and to informing policy-making. Third, a systematic literature review of case studies reporting on participatory approaches to vulnerability analysis allows us to argue that participation has been important to address the above, but it remains too closed down in its approach and would benefit from embracing a more open, encompassing perspective. Therefore, we suggest rethinking vulnerability analysis as one part of a dynamic process between opening-up and closing-down strategies, in order to support a vulnerability governance framework. [less ▲]

Scientists in many fields of research have developed models, theories and concepts attempting to grasp and manage dangers that are often difficult to concretely imagine. Their final objective is to ... [more ▼]

Scientists in many fields of research have developed models, theories and concepts attempting to grasp and manage dangers that are often difficult to concretely imagine. Their final objective is to maintain or improve the safety of the system considered. In this respect, the risk-based and the vulnerability-based approaches are different, yet complementary. After presenting the main forms taken by vulnerability approaches in the scientific literature, we elaborate on the potential of “opening-up” such an analysis through the use of a Science and Technology Studies (STS) vulnerability-based approach. We then present results from case studies concerning emergency planning, on the one hand, and an analysis of the perception of the REX system of SCK•CEN, on the other hand. We demonstrate how such an approach contributes to shed light on under-explored aspects of safety and provides a nuanced perspective on actual safety practices. As a conclusion, we propose further work directions to be followed. [less ▲]

Within the context of a nuclear facility, how can an event be qualified as an incident or not, depending on different definitions, either formal or corresponding to actors' own representations? In this ... [more ▼]

Within the context of a nuclear facility, how can an event be qualified as an incident or not, depending on different definitions, either formal or corresponding to actors' own representations? In this presentation, we show how different those definitions are, and we elaborate on the reasons why such a focus on conceptual boundaries is interesting in the context of "incident reporting". [less ▲]

The practice of “incident reporting” is commonly recognized as an effective mean to reduce the vulnerability of “at risk” socio-technical systems (e.g. nuclear plants, large industrial facilities or ... [more ▼]

The practice of “incident reporting” is commonly recognized as an effective mean to reduce the vulnerability of “at risk” socio-technical systems (e.g. nuclear plants, large industrial facilities or hospitals), as it allow the concerned community to learn from past incidents. Indeed, it is assumed that collective resilience will be upgraded via the use of institutionalized Incident Reporting System (IRS), enabling the organization to improve the quality of the actions and reactions in case of deviation from normality, or to prevent such deviation. Yet, inductive analysis of what happens with those IRS in practice are not numerous. In this paper, we address this gap and display the results of semi-structured interviews conducted in a nuclear facility. During those interviews, participants were also requested to produce a mind map of the IRS they are concerned with. As a result, we show that safety is a matter of solidarities that are situated in specific contexts. To that regard, incident reporting is a practice of decomposition and recomposition of trusts and thus of solidarities. Reporting incidents consists in putting solidarity on trial, as the collective safety was threatened. We show that such open trial is often avoided because questioning solidarities is not always desirable in order to allow the group to continue functioning. Overall, we argue that informal reporting behaviors can also contribute to upgrade collective resilience without putting solidarities on trial. [less ▲]

In the context of vulnerability analysis, it is now widely aknowledged that social factors should be taken into account, alongside technical ones. Depending on the particular approach adopted, these ... [more ▼]

In the context of vulnerability analysis, it is now widely aknowledged that social factors should be taken into account, alongside technical ones. Depending on the particular approach adopted, these social factors are considered to influence “coping capacities”, “adaptive capacities” or “resilience”. The ability of a socio-technical system to learn from past incidents and accidents seems to have a positive influence on its vulnerability, as it increases its capacity to adapt properly in case of future unwanted envents. To that regard, incident reporting systems are of first importance as they are supposed to constitute a collective memory of past incidents, to initiate a collective share of information and to foster collective learning and adapations. Yet, the theoretical assumptions about the ability of a reporting system to imply collective learning have still to be demonstrated. This paper proposes a methodology addressing this issue. To do so, we conduct a number of semi-structured interviews in a nuclear facility with various types of actors (managers, lab responsibles, technical workers), and in different risk contexts. In addition, participants are requested to produce a mental map of the reporting system they are concerned with. These inputs are then analyzed following a “cross-case analysis” procedure in order to identify patterns of actors' representations of the reporting system, and to link these patterns to potential learning processes fostered by the system. This constitutes the first step of an inductive research process aiming to identify and characterize the link between reporting systems and collective learning. In the next steps, the link between the identified patterns of representations and collective learning processes will be tested quantitatively. The final aim being to elaborate ways to improve Incident Reporting Systems to improve collective learning. [less ▲]

Scholars in many fields of research have developed models, theories and concepts attempting to grasp and manage dangers that are often difficult to concretely imagine. Their final objective is to maintain ... [more ▼]

Scholars in many fields of research have developed models, theories and concepts attempting to grasp and manage dangers that are often difficult to concretely imagine. Their final objective is to maintain the safety of the system considered. Dealing with potential hazards, some researchers distinguish between the vulnerability approach and the risk approach. The risk based approach is focused on acquiring accurate probabilistic information about the events themselves. Yet, Sarewitz (2003: 806) reminds that “there are numerous cases in which accurate assessment of risk is impossible” and that “lack of experience with many phenomena and outcomes means that understanding the uncertainty of the uncertainty estimates is impossible”. Thus, beyond the risk-based approach, another perspective emerged: vulnerability analysis (VA). Vulnerability can be described as “the degree to which a system, subsystem, or system component is likely to experience harm due to exposure to a hazard” (Turner et al. 2003: 8074). VA seems capable of overcoming the shortcomings of risk analysis in situations where knowledge about both probabilities and outcomes is incomplete or insufficient (Sarewitz 2003). The vulnerability approach and the classical risk analysis approach are thus based on different premises (Gilbert 2006): while risk analysis focuses on the hazard, VA focuses on the system under threat. From that starting point, we realized in order to analyse the state-of-the art in the field of vulnerability analysis, with particular emphasis on participatory approaches. The aims were: i) to study how the concept of vulnerability has been defined and used in different fields of application (e.g. natural and industrial hazards) and ii) to analyse whether the theoretical claim that participatory approaches to vulnerability analysis have the potential for great scientific and political outputs has been actually demonstrated in practice. Based on this study we formulate a threefold critique: first, VA has been treated separately in natural and technological hazards fields. This separation is unproductive for a fine-grained understanding of what vulnerability can provide as a concept, as it prevents vulnerability to unleash the full range of its potential. Second, VA focused on assessment tools that are mainly quantitative, whereas qualitative appraisal is a key to assess vulnerability in a comprehensive way and to inform policy-making. Third, a systematic literature review on participatory VA case studies allows us to argue that participation has been important to address the above, but it remains too closed down in its approach and would rather benefit from embracing a more opened, encompassing perspective. Therefore, we suggest re-thinking participatory VA as one part of a dynamic process between opening-up and closing-down strategies, in order to support a reflexive vulnerability governance framework. Doing so is not exempt of challenges, though. Since analytical reflection on vulnerability is to be transferred into practices of risk and vulnerability governance, taking into account the context in which governance agents need to take appropriate decisions is of primary importance. Thus, based on the conclusion of this presentation, the practical ways of realizing a reflexive vulnerability governance should now be explored. [less ▲]

In order to analyze and try to mitigate the potential consequences of a hazard threatening a complex socio-technical system, the risk analysis framework is classically used. Many risk analysis models ... [more ▼]

In order to analyze and try to mitigate the potential consequences of a hazard threatening a complex socio-technical system, the risk analysis framework is classically used. Many risk analysis models recognize now widely the importance of integrating social aspects into the analysis. Another way to deal with potential consequences of hazards is to analyze the vulnerability of the system considered. This paradigm overcomes the shortcomings of risk analysis in situations when the knowledge about the probabilities and the outcomes is incomplete or insufficient. Studies in the literature considering natural hazards show that socio-economic factors are integrated more often and in a natural way in vulnerability analysis models. Nevertheless, it seems that such considerations are missing into models aiming at evaluating the vulnerability to an industrial hazard, especially at a very local level where the technical aspects seem to be predominant. What can we learn from the analysis of the models addressing vulnerability to natural hazards in terms of the integration of social factors? To answer this question, we realized a systematic literature review from scientific journal papers on vulnerability analysis published in the last two decades. We synthesize this review and we propose an integrated vulnerability analysis model; in order to test this model we use as a case-study the incident reports collected in a nuclear facility in Belgium. This confrontation allows us to highlight important factors to be taken into account for a vulnerability analysis conducted in such a context. [less ▲]

The risk analysis framework has been the dominant theoretical framework used to address the uncertainty of a potential hazard bypassing the system's safeguards and protection. In essence, this involves ... [more ▼]

The risk analysis framework has been the dominant theoretical framework used to address the uncertainty of a potential hazard bypassing the system's safeguards and protection. In essence, this involves the evaluation of the probability and the magnitude of the consequences of the undesired events that can transform the hazard into actual damage. Despite the technical premises, the importance of integrating social aspects into the analysis is now recognized by an increasing number or risk analysis models. Another way to deal with potential consequences of hazards is to analyze the vulnerability of the system considered. This paradigm overcomes the shortcomings of risk analysis in situations when the knowledge about the probabilities and the outcomes is incomplete or insufficient On the one hand, studies in the literature show that socio-economic factors are often integrated in a participative way in vulnerability analysis models especially in the natural hazards research field. On the other hand, it seems that such considerations are rarely integrated in the models aiming at evaluating the vulnerability to an industrial hazard. What can we learn from the analysis of models addressing vulnerability to natural hazards in terms of the participatory integration of social factors? What could be the reasons to apply such participation tools in order to assess the vulnerability to industrial hazards? These are the questions we address in this contribution. To do so, we realized a systematic literature review from scientific journal papers on vulnerability analysis published in the last two decades. From this review, three main arguments can be found arguing for the use of participation for vulnerability analysis. Indeed, participation allows (1) context-based assessments, that may (2) foster the development of adaptative capacities (3) both for short and long-term. Based on those arguments, we identifiy possible paths to foster participation for context-based industrial vulnerability analysis. [less ▲]

E-participation has been increasingly used to enhance participation and deliberation, and ultimately the quality of democracy. In the case of the development of new technologies, participative design ... [more ▼]

E-participation has been increasingly used to enhance participation and deliberation, and ultimately the quality of democracy. In the case of the development of new technologies, participative design defenders underline the importance of integrating final users into the product elaboration process. In this case, e-participation tools permit not only to include a large number of future users but also to better incorporate their expectations. In Belgium, such participative approach has precisely been mobilized for the design of an e-voting system for trade unions’ elections. This case study provides thus a fertile field to test the assumption that e-participation effectively leads to a ‘better’ participation and deliberation. How is it a pertinent way to enhance democracy? How does it reflect the actual fears and expectations of users? What are the limits and potentialities of this participative approach? Based on this e-participation experience (Delphi method), i.e. an online qualitative survey submitted to 200 future users, we seek to give tentative answers to those questions. Overall, we demonstrate that this kind of method may produce fruitful participative inputs to e-voting system design. Nevertheless, final decision-making process leading to the adoption of the system remains complex and the e-participative input can display second-order issues. [less ▲]